NationStates

Ethel mermania wrote:
not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Loving V. Virginia found that marriage is a basic civil right of man. That basic civil right is being violated in breach of the fourteenth amendment.

Khadgar wrote:

Coffee Cakes wrote:
That's why he's my favorite person on Fox, he's an independent thinker compared to the rest on that channel.

He thinks the tides are caused by magic.

I'm pretty sure it's the merwizards.

Ifreann wrote:

Khadgar wrote:
He thinks the tides are caused by magic.

I'm pretty sure it's the merwizards.

This is why we must continue to sacrifice the horses! I've been saying it all along!

Khadgar wrote:Bill O'Reilly has always been in favor of civil unions? Right, I'll wait for John Stewart to research that bullshit.

Win.

Good for him, just like Rob Portman he realized what is truly right. Religion should not decide public policy and a person should have the freedom to marry whoever they wish.

Judging from the situation in the courts, the most that will happen seems to be the benefits portion of the Defense of Marriage Act being declared unconstitutional and couples in states with same-sex marriage will have access to federal benefits.

Des-Bal wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Loving V. Virginia found that marriage is a basic civil right of man. That basic civil right is being violated in breach of the fourteenth amendment.

we will see.

when blacks were not slaves, it took a constitutional admendment,
when women got the vote, it took an admendment,
when 18 year olds got the vote, it took an admendment.

i dont like doma (though i understand why it was passed). i support rrpealing doma, i dont think it should be overturned

Divair wrote:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/26/bill-oreilly-says-same-sex-marriage-foes-are-just-a-bunch-of-bible-thumpers/

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly knocked opponents of same sex marriage on Tuesday night, claiming they had a weak argument that relied entirely on religious beliefs.

The conservative Fox News host was discussing two cases before the Supreme Court regarding same sex marriage with his colleague Megyn Kelly.

During the segment, O’Reilly remarked that public policy should be based on religion. Kelly responded by saying that arguments against same sex marriage were not very persuasive when the religious element was removed.

“I agree with you 100 percent, the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said. “That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.”

“That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

“I support civil unions, I always have,” he added. “The gay marriage thing, I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or the other. I think the states should do it.”

We win. Even Faux now accepts same sex marriage.

Bill O’Reilly, is generally a hack that thumps the party line, or makes bombastic statements. But occasionally he surprises you.

Khadgar wrote:Bill O'Reilly has always been in favor of civil unions? Right, I'll wait for John Stewart to research that bullshit.

There is an interview that dates back to 2007 where he says he is for civil unions.
http://voices.yahoo.com/bill-o-reillys- ... html?cat=9

Bill O'Reilly's political opinions are and always have been whatever gets him the most money.

And you wonder why the Tea Party calls them too left-wing.

Samuraikoku wrote:And you wonder why the Tea Party calls them too left-wing.

You think, that they really look at same sex marriage as inherently left-wing? Not suprising if that was true.

Anyways good of Bill O.

Des-Bal wrote:
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.

This is the only issue for me as well. I think that American citizens who are not treated equal to other citizens is a crime against humanity. However, I think they should just reverse prop 8 and leave the rest of the US alone for the time being, not because I believe it should not be passed, but the way it is being passed (at the supreme court) is 9 old judges sitting in a room), not in Congress, not by elected or popular vote (at least not directly). To be sure I would not mind any way this gets passed, I think this is a perfectly good way to pass it, but I think we should be weary of the backlash this could cause if it is done this way. The uncooperative reactionary tea party response if the Supreme Court did this would be to throw this squarely on the shoulders of the Administration at the point because this is literally what we are dealing with in the tea party and some of the more reactionary republicans. They will see this as the Federal Government as being the big bad tyranical socialists they are infact not, and if it passes in this fashion they might be even more motivated to stand against any kind of progress Democrats and Reasonable Republicans (ugh I feel so bad for Boehner) try to make no matter how good it is for the sake of the country or the people, and while pulling shit like like this is in every way opposite of what America stands for, they will do it anyway because they are that goddamn desperate.

Maurepas wrote:Sort of anyway. He adds the new tact at the end, "I think the states should do it", it's the same argument they fell back on when Slavery was on the way out, when the Civil Rights Movement was on the offensive, and every time the conservatives fail at something.

It's win-win for the Republican Party, they attempt to get the bigotry albatross from around their neck, and Georgia and Mississippi get to continue killing gays. Win fucking win.

Indeed. States rights is a cop out. That's why Ron Paul would have been a GOD AWFUL President. Some times leadership requires going against the whims of the people. He would have sat on his hands and said I am against but the states thought otherwise.

Oh an OP:

Bill is a toady nothing more. Sometimes he will take up an issue. But, when you get down to it; he will follow party lines. If Fox made an official editorial supporting it, then I would be

States should decide. I.E popular sovereignty.

Wow, are those divisions already settling in on traditional lines?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:That seems more like a "come on team we have to try harder" than a concession.
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.

not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Too bad for you the law in this case is most emphatically unconstitutional, because it is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.

Fox News has morphed into another right-of-center purveyor of largely infotainment, like ABC and CBS.

Therefore they have earned the ire of the true believers, the card carrying members of the True Right Armageddon! http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1298166

Disserbia wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.

This is the only issue for me as well. I think that American citizens who are not treated equal to other citizens is a crime against humanity. However, I think they should just reverse prop 8 and leave the rest of the US alone for the time being, not because I believe it should not be passed, but the way it is being passed (at the supreme court) is 9 old judges sitting in a room), not in Congress, not by elected or popular vote (at least not directly). To be sure I would not mind any way this gets passed, I think this is a perfectly good way to pass it, but I think we should be weary of the backlash this could cause if it is done this way. The uncooperative reactionary tea party response if the Supreme Court did this would be to throw this squarely on the shoulders of the Administration at the point because this is literally what we are dealing with in the tea party and some of the more reactionary republicans. They will see this as the Federal Government as being the big bad tyranical socialists they are infact not, and if it passes in this fashion they might be even more motivated to stand against any kind of progress Democrats and Reasonable Republicans (ugh I feel so bad for Boehner) try to make no matter how good it is for the sake of the country or the people, and while pulling shit like like this is in every way opposite of what America stands for, they will do it anyway because they are that goddamn desperate.

Good god man, carriage returns. Use them. Love them.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Disserbia wrote:This is the only issue for me as well. I think that American citizens who are not treated equal to other citizens is a crime against humanity. However, I think they should just reverse prop 8 and leave the rest of the US alone for the time being, not because I believe it should not be passed, but the way it is being passed (at the supreme court) is 9 old judges sitting in a room), not in Congress, not by elected or popular vote (at least not directly). To be sure I would not mind any way this gets passed, I think this is a perfectly good way to pass it, but I think we should be weary of the backlash this could cause if it is done this way. The uncooperative reactionary tea party response if the Supreme Court did this would be to throw this squarely on the shoulders of the Administration at the point because this is literally what we are dealing with in the tea party and some of the more reactionary republicans. They will see this as the Federal Government as being the big bad tyranical socialists they are infact not, and if it passes in this fashion they might be even more motivated to stand against any kind of progress Democrats and Reasonable Republicans (ugh I feel so bad for Boehner) try to make no matter how good it is for the sake of the country or the people, and while pulling shit like like this is in every way opposite of what America stands for, they will do it anyway because they are that goddamn desperate.

Good god man, carriage returns. Use them. Love them.

Carriage return? Jesus man how old are you? Talking about fucking typewriters.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Too bad for you the law in this case is most emphatically unconstitutional, because it is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.

Even beyond that it's unconstitutional. By my (probably incorrect) understanding, the only say the federal government has in marriage is enforcing constitutional provisions. The rest is up to the states.

Divair wrote:We win. Even Faux now accepts same sex marriage.

No, Fox has been always the talking figure of the GOP, it's just a ploy to win over voters next year. Any sane person can see right through that mask their trying to pull.

Khadgar wrote:

The Emerald Dawn wrote:Good god man, carriage returns. Use them. Love them.

Carriage return? Jesus man how old are you? Talking about fucking typewriters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_return#Computers

Yes, I used to work on a typewriter. Yes I know it originated as a typewriter term. I'm using it instead of "Enter key" because the "Enter key" tells the system to insert a carriage return.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Too bad for you the law in this case is most emphatically unconstitutional, because it is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.

DOMA could withstand a SC challenge though, with the current makeup of the court.

The Emerald Dawn wrote:

Khadgar wrote:

Carriage return? Jesus man how old are you? Talking about fucking typewriters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_return#Computers

Yes, I used to work on a typewriter. Yes I know it originated as a typewriter term. I'm using it instead of "Enter key" because the "Enter key" tells the system to insert a carriage return.

:P

Yeah my first typing lessons were on a typewriter. Had one at home even.

New West Guiana wrote:

Divair wrote:We win. Even Faux now accepts same sex marriage.

No, Fox has been always the talking figure of the GOP, it's just a ploy to win over voters next year. Any sane person can see right through that mask their trying to pull.

Fox is trying to change the minds of its viewers. It remains to be seen whether or not it will work.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Well, modern conservatives will eventually become libertarians, while the Democrats grow more authoritarian, so it will become a liberty-authority rule instead of equality-morality.

Libertarians Unite!

What?

Kola Republic wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:Well, modern conservatives will eventually become libertarians, while the Democrats grow more authoritarian, so it will become a liberty-authority rule instead of equality-morality.

Libertarians Unite!

What?

He fundamentally misunderstands the direction American politics is moving.